Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Fwd: [council] Friendly amendment to VI Charter

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thank you very much for those comments Jothan.

So far, I am under the impression that the DT is in favour of both amendments 
(Tim's and Caroline's).

If that is not the case, please let the group know. I would like to be able to 
approve these amendments asap if that is the group's intent.

Stéphane

Le 5 mars 2010 à 18:54, Jothan Frakes a écrit :

> Completely support the change.
> 
> However, I am not speaking the voice of the registrars.
> 
> Given my perspective and experience on this it seems like a smart change. So 
> Caroline's suggestion is something I support.  I think Brian Cute brought 
> this point up during one of our calls and I thought it was wise then, but I 
> think it got lost in the discussion on that call.
> 
> It seems to me that the desired outcome is  to not advantage any party over 
> another.  That seems at the essence of the distinction of equal / equivalent. 
>  Equivalent is more appropriate.
> 
> Here's some of my justification in the context of the current system:
> Equivalent is a more appropriate word as it emulates the status quo and 
> reflects what is most reasonably accomplished.  Equal access is a Utopian 
> concept in the SRS because there are different types of volume profiles and 
> even activity profiles in the registrar space.  
> 
> Essentially the outcome / objective is that we want to have all registrars 
> treated fairly and evenly in the SRS, but pragmatically a registrar that does 
> 15 transactions a day need not have the same bandwidth and connectivity 
> available to them that one doing a million or more transactions.  And 
> conversely, a registrar that has the business need to perform a million or 
> more transactions should not be constrained to 15 transactions.  
> 
> There are also some that leverage multiple registrar accreditations to obtain 
> a higher availability of "equal access"es.  
> 
> It seems to me that the word Equivalent provides the appropriate room for a 
> registry to exercise  some mild discretion to sort out the disparity if it 
> exists.  
> 
> Now in the context of the Objective 4, it might be that the standard of 
> "Equal" access would not be proven if reviewing some of the status quo.  But 
> "Equivalent" access could be shown, and it is important to understand what's 
> behind the distinction.  It is also important to note that the distinction 
> exists and was put there to create reasonable equity to the systems and needs 
> of the systems as it evolved.  
> 
> I hope we'll acocmodate the friendly amendment.
> 
> -Jothan
> 
> Jothan Frakes, COO
> Minds + Machines
> +1.206-355-0230 tel
> +1.206-201-6881 fax
> jothan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> 2010/3/5 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
> DT members. Same question here. Would the group like to give me their opinion 
> on this or do you trust me to decide whether this amendment is friendly or 
> not?
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> Début du message réexpédié :
> 
>> De : "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date : 5 mars 2010 14:11:00 HNEC
>> À : Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>, "Caroline Greer" 
>> <cgreer@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc : <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Objet : RE: [council] Friendly amendment to VI Charter
>> 
>> Caroline,
>>  
>> Are you proposing this as an amendment before the motion is voted on?
>>  
>> Chuck
>> 
>> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
>> Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
>> Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 7:15 AM
>> To: Caroline Greer
>> Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [council] Friendly amendment to VI Charter
>> 
>> Caroline,
>> 
>> Thank you for your message. Please note that the DT recognised that the 
>> definitions were works in progress. However, within the time we had to 
>> produce a charter, it would have been impossible to refine the definitions. 
>> This is why the following footnote was included:
>> 
>> The working definitions included in this charter are subject to further 
>> development and refinement by Staff, but are included in the interests of 
>> time in order to allow the remainder of the charter to be finalized and 
>> approved by the GNSO Council.  
>> 
>> It was the DT's expectation that the WG would continue to work on the 
>> definitions.
>> 
>> Stéphane   
>> 
>> Le 5 mars 2010 à 11:40, Caroline Greer a écrit :
>> 
>>> Dear All,
>>> The Registries Stakeholder Group [RySG] would like to propose a friendly 
>>> amendment to the Vertical Integration Charter circulated by Stéphane.
>>> For purposes of accuracy and consistency, we believe that Objective #4 
>>> should be revised to read: “To identify and clearly articulate the 
>>> differences between the current restrictions and practices concerning 
>>> registry-registrar separation and equivalent access, on the one hand, and 
>>> the options described in the most recent version of the DAG and supporting 
>>> documents[1] and changes considered by staff, on the other hand.”
>>> The words “equivalent access” in yellow would replace the words “equal 
>>> access” that are in the current version of Objective #4. We understand that 
>>> the Charter Group has recognized the difference between “equal access” and 
>>> “equivalent access” in its deliberations and has adopted “equivalent 
>>> access” in other parts of the Charter.
>>> More generally, the RySG notes that the proposed working definitions in the 
>>> Charter are neither accurate nor complete and, in certain cases, they 
>>> represent policy statements.  The RySG underscores the importance of 
>>> developing standalone definitions for each element of vertical integration. 
>>>  However, these definitions should be developed by experts in competition 
>>> and antitrust matters and derived from, where possible, language in ICANN 
>>> contracts and ICANN documentation that uses the relevant terms.     
>>> Many thanks.
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Caroline.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> [1] The working group understands that the DAG is a fluid document.  As a 
>>> result, the working group will conduct its activities based upon the 
>>> version of the document available.
>> 
> 
>